Luke Mitchell - All quiet?

[Joe Blogs]

I’m sorry but I found that virtually impossible to follow, and you lost me when you claimed he changed out of school clothes to parka and back again.

Ha ha! I do my best, Vertigo!
The changing clothes part is easy, he went home from school on the day of the murder in his 'school clothes' including Bomber jacket. He must then have changed into parka [ and other clothing?] before setting off to kill Jodi, then once he got home around 6.30 he burned the parka[and other clothing?] then Luke changed back into school clothing and Bomber before meeting the boys at the Abbey around 7.00.
Make any sense, Vertigo?
Its the prosecution claim surely?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Ha ha! I do my best, Vertigo!
The changing clothes part is easy, he went home from school on the day of the murder in his 'school clothes' including Bomber jacket. He must then have changed into parka [ and other clothing?] before setting off to kill Jodi, then once he got home around 6.30 he burned the parka[and other clothing?] then Luke changed back into school clothing and Bomber before meeting the boys at the Abbey around 7.00.
Make any sense, Vertigo?
Its the prosecution claim surely?

Sounds plausible though I doubt he had time to burn the parka early evening.  That happened later according to witnesses did it not?

[Joe Blogs]

Sounds plausible though I doubt he had time to burn the parka early evening.  That happened later according to witnesses did it not?

Well obviously I dont think any clothing was burned at all, Vertigo.
But if I was burning incriminating evidence, it would be as quick as possible, I know that!

[Chris_Halkides]

That’s immaterial to the point I was making.

My second sentence maybe, but my first sentence?  Please explain.

[Chris_Halkides]

” I suspect that the shops in both cities keep records of purchases” Isn’t that conjecture?

No.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well obviously I dont think any clothing was burned at all, Vertigo.
But if I was burning incriminating evidence, it would be as quick as possible, I know that!

But we know the fire happened later that evening, prior to the body having been discovered no?

[Vertigo Swirl]

My second sentence maybe, but my first sentence?  Please explain.

My point I thought was self-explanatory.  Mitchell fans have no coherent alternative suspect but throw accusations out willy nilly on any number of other individuals linked to the family or the area, it doesn’t seem to matter who just so long as it diverts the discussion away from their man and sows seeds of suspicion elsewhere (despite the absence of any actual concrete evidence of their involvement).

[Vertigo Swirl]

No.

So when you say you suspect something what you mean is you’re actually making a statement of fact?

[Parky41]

But we know the fire happened later that evening, prior to the body having been discovered no?

Fire reported at different times of the evening.

[Parky41]

Someone on this board, possibly MA, suggested that he was forensically aware.  He was forensically examined from head to toes shins, and this did not produce anything.  That would be a remarkable clean up.

Fallacy, he was not "forensically examined from head to shins" As MA points out, as have others, as did the prof. If someone is covered it's what they have on that takes the brunt of any contamination. But again, his whole body had not been forensically swabbed etc. Nor had every inch of his hair, a sample taken.

[faithlilly]

You make some valid points, but I would've thought that there was more of a chance of LM  being noticed in smaller towns and villages that were nearer or within travelling distance to his home in Newbattle (eg, Dalkeith, Newtongrange, Bonnyrigg, Livingston). Surely there was a greater chance of refuge and anonymity in a big city such as Edinburgh? For example, when people go on the run, aren't they more likely to flee to big cities such as London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, and so on? These big cities offering a better chance of a fugitive not being found, a better chance of integrating without drawing attention to themselves, a better chance of employment, and so on? With a complex circumstantial case such as this one, there will always be supposition, if, buts or maybes, and that to me (and, I suspect, to a lot of people) is very interesting. Anyway, I wouldn't have thought LM, regardless of how regular a customer he was at certain shops in a big city, would have been noticed; shops in big cities have more staff, bigger rotas, more changes in staff, and so on? How does SL know how often LM shopped in Flip? How many visits to a shop constitutes being regarded as a regular customer? The only reason LM was spotted in Flip on 08.07.03 was down to pure chance: a staff member who knew Jodi but didn't know LM other than to look at, spotted him in the shop with CM on 08.07.03. She told her manager (a guy called Colin) and he called the police, and hence why the FLO Michelle Lindsay and police were waiting at the Mitchell family home when they returned from their shopping trip in Edinburgh on 08.07.03; it seems the staffmember who knew Jodi but didn't know LM other than to look at (LM didn't know who she was either) scuppered the Mitchells' insidious plan to replace the old parka with a new one and make out that the new one was the old one and that there only ever was one parka all along. How very crafty, eh? But, by sheer chance and luck, a Flip staff member recognised LM and her evidence was part of the prosecution's circumstantial case that got LM convicted for murder.

And why would the Mitchells hide away and walk on egg shells immediately after the murder? Surely, that would make them appear suspicious? The Mitchells had to act as normal as possible so people would not suspect them of anything, and LM was a psychopath and narcissist, swanning around loving the attention as a murder suspect (literally boasting to his mates that he was a murder suspect) and out partying in night clubs in Edinburgh mere days after the murder with not a care in the world, having new girlfriends within weeks of the murder. The Mitchells were forensically aware and knew that they had destroyed the one item that could tie LM to the murder: the khaki green army parka with German army badges on the sleeves. The Mitchells thought they'd gotten away with murder -- until that very rude awakening on the morning of 14.04.04.

Why would a shop manager think it at all suspicious that a customer, even Luke, was buying clothes after a murder?
Aren’t individuals close to a murder victim allowed to buy clothes?

It’s funny the only source I can find for the ‘Colin’ episode is from a site called pieandbovril and the source seems to write without paragraphs in precisely the same way as you MA.

[Joe Blogs]

But we know the fire happened later that evening, prior to the body having been discovered no?

Well apparently Mrs Frankland saw/smelt smoke between 6.30-7.30 for a start, Vertigo.
Then the Franklands smelt smoke coming in at their kitchen window around ten, and Mr Ramage saw smoke/flames around this time too.

[faithlilly]

Fire reported at different times of the evening.

Indeed it was which begs the question why? Surely it would be more prudent to burn the clothes as early as they could? Surely burning anything at 10pm would raise more suspicion than earlier in the evening? Why start burning, stop then start again? Why invite David High to his house while Luke knew that his murder garb was being burned?

So many questions!

[Chris_Halkides]

” I suspect that the shops in both cities keep records of purchases” Isn’t that conjecture?

A manager of a Walmart (2000-2018) wrote, "In theory modern accounting and point of sales systems make inventory tracking easier than it ever was in the past. Inventory coming in is scanned and entered into inventory. Then when an item is bought it is scanned and taken out of inventory. Then the system orders more based on how fast each item is selling."  I have read that point of sale data is saved for a minimum of twelve months.  My experience with cash sales in a second hand store is that they were recorded on a duplicating tablet.  I received one of the copies.  If one did not record each sale, how would one know whether he or she had taken in the correct amount of revenue?

[Chris_Halkides]

Fallacy, he was not "forensically examined from head to shins" As MA points out, as have others, as did the prof. If someone is covered it's what they have on that takes the brunt of any contamination. But again, his whole body had not been forensically swabbed etc. Nor had every inch of his hair, a sample taken.

His clothing was confiscated.  His hair was examined.  His fingernails were scraped and nothing of significance was found.  One or more injuries to his shins was described.  When Professor Busuttil was later asked about the possibility that blood was not transferred to the murderer, he said that it was highly unlikely that it was not.